Vladimir_Nesov comments on Open Thread: July 2010, Part 2 - Less Wrong

6 Post author: Alicorn 09 July 2010 06:54AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (770)

Tags: open_thread

Comments (770)

Sort By: Best

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 28 July 2010 10:38:29PM * 46 points [-]

So you've deleted the posts you've made in the past. This is harmful for the blog, disrupts the record and makes the comments by other people on those posts unavailable.

For example, consider these posts, and comments on them, that you deleted:

11 core rationalist skills (39 points, 33 comments, promoted)
The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Truth About Morality and What To Do About It (23 points, 108 comments, promoted)
Supporting the underdog is explained by Hanson’s Near/Far distinction (20 points, 18 comments, promoted)
Max Tegmark on our place in history: "We're Not Insignificant After All" (14 points, 68 comments)

I believe it's against community blog ethics to delete posts in this manner. I'd like them restored.

Edit: Roko accepted this argument and said he's OK with restoring the posts under an anonymous username (if it's technically possible).

Comment author: cousin_it 29 July 2010 09:11:13AM * 6 points [-]

It's ironic that, from a timeless point of view, Roko has done well. Future copies of Roko on LessWrong will not receive the same treatment as this copy did, because this copy's actions constitute proof of what happens as a result.

(This comment is part of my ongoing experiment to explain anything at all with timeless/acausal reasoning.)

Comment author: bogus 29 July 2010 09:54:42AM * 3 points [-]

What "treatment" did you have in mind? At best, Roko made a honest mistake, and the deletion of a single post of his was necessary to avoid more severe consequences (such as FAI never being built). Roko's MindWipe was within his rights, but he can't help having this very public action judged by others.

What many people will infer from this is that he cares more about arguing for his position (about CEV and other issues) than honestly providing info, and now that he has "failed" to do that he's just picking up his toys and going home.

Comment author: wedrifid 25 September 2010 07:17:57AM 1 point [-]

This comment is part of my ongoing experiment to explain anything at all with timeless/acausal reasoning.

I just noticed this. A brilliant disclaimer!

Comment author: rhollerith_dot_com 29 July 2010 12:11:27AM * 3 points [-]

Parent is inaccurate: although Roko's comments are not, Roko's posts (i.e., top-level submissions) are still available, as are their comment sections minus Roko's comments (but Roko's name is no longer on them and they are no longer accessible via /user/Roko/ URLs).

Comment author: RobinZ 29 July 2010 03:30:50AM 14 points [-]

Not via user/Roko or via /tag/ or via /new/ or via /top/ or via / - they are only accessible through direct links saved by previous users, and that makes them much harder to stumble upon. This remains a cost.

Comment author: [deleted] 18 August 2010 02:36:24AM 6 points [-]

Could the people who have such links post them here?

Comment author: Blueberry 29 July 2010 10:36:06AM 23 points [-]

And I'd like the post of Roko's that got banned restored. If I were Roko I would be very angry about having my post deleted because of an infinitesimal far-fetched chance of an AI going wrong. I'm angry about it now and I didn't even write it. That's what was "harmful for the blog, disrupts the record and makes the comments by other people on those posts unavailable." That's what should be against the blog ethics.

I don't blame him for removing all of his contributions after his post was treated like that.

Comment author: katydee comment score below threshold [+] (199 children)

Comment author: hegemonicon 29 July 2010 01:23:58PM 26 points [-]

This is silly - there's simply no way to assign a probability of his posts increasing the chance of UFAI with any degree of confidence, to the point where I doubt you could even get the sign right.

For example, deleting posts because they might add an infinitesimally small amount to the probability of UFAI being created makes this community look slightly more like a bunch of paranoid nutjobs, which overall will hinder its ability to accomplish its goals and makes UFAI more likely.

From what I understand, the actual banning was due to it's likely negative effects on the community, as Eliezer has seen similar things on the SL4 mailing list - which I won't comment on. But PLEASE be very careful using the might-increase-the-chance-of-UFAI excuse, because without fairly bulletproof reasoning it can be used to justify almost anything.

Comment author: fortyeridania 10 December 2010 03:37:25PM 2 points [-]

Thank you for pointing out the difficulty of quantifying existential risks posed blog posts.

The danger from deleting blog posts is much more tangible, and the results of censorship are conspicuous. You have pointed out two such dangers in your comment--(1) LWers will look nuttier and (2) it sets a bad precedent.

(Of course, if there is a way to quantify the marginal benefit of an LW post, then there is also a way to quantify the marginal cost from a bad one--just reverse the sign, and you'll be right on average.)

Comment author: jimrandomh 10 December 2010 03:46:44PM 1 point [-]

(Of course, if there is a way to quantify the marginal benefit of an LW post, then there is also a way to quantify the marginal cost from a bad one--just reverse the sign, and you'll be right on average.)

Huh? Why should these be equal? Why should they even be on the same order of magnitude? For example, an advertising spam post that gets deleted does orders of magnitude much less harm than an average good post does good. And a post that contained designs for a UFAI would do orders of magnitude more harm.

Comment author: fortyeridania 11 December 2010 03:48:22AM 1 point [-]

You are right to say that it's possible to have extemely harmful blog posts, and it is also possible to have mostly harmless blog posts. I also agree that the examples you've cited are apt.

However, it is also possible to have extremely good blog posts (such as one containing designs for a tool to prevent the rise of UFAI or that changed many powerful people's minds for the better) and to have barely beneficial ones.

Do we have a reason to think that the big bads are more likely than big goods? Or that a few really big bads are more likely than many moderate goods? I think that's the kind of reason that would topple what I've said.

One of my assumptions here is that whether a post is good or bad does not change the magnitude of its impact. The magnitide of its positivity or negativity might change its the magnitude of its impact, but why should the sign?

I'm sorry if I've misunderstood your criticism. If I have, please give me another chance.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 10 December 2010 03:44:48PM 1 point [-]

(Of course, if there is a way to quantify the marginal benefit of an LW post, then there is also a way to quantify the marginal cost from a bad one--just reverse the sign, and you'll be right on average.)

That makes sense for evaluating the cost/benefit to me of reading a post. But if I want to evaluate the overall cost/benefit of the post itself, I should also take into account the number of people who read one vs. the other. Given the ostensible purpose of karma and promotion, these ought to be significantly different.

Comment author: fortyeridania 11 December 2010 03:47:29AM 0 points [-]

Are you saying: (1) A bad post is less likely to be read because it will not be promoted and it will be downvoted; (2) Because bad posts are less read, they have a smaller cost than good posts' benefits?

I think I agree with that. I had not considered karma and promotion, which behave like advertisements in their informational value, when making that comment.

But I think that what you're saying only strengthens the case against moderators' deleting posts against the poster's will because it renders the objectionable material less objectionable.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 11 December 2010 04:18:30AM 2 points [-]

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

And I'm not attempting to weaken or strengthen the case against anything in particular.

Comment author: JamesAndrix 06 August 2010 08:17:15AM * 1 point [-]

http://www.damninteresting.com/this-place-is-not-a-place-of-honor

Note to reader: This thread is curiosity inducing, this is affecting your judgement. You might think you can compensate for this bias but you probably won't in actuality. Stop reading anyway. Trust me on this. Edit: Me, and Larks, and ocr-fork, AND ROKO and I think <snip> [some but not all others]

I say for now because those who know about this are going to keep looking at it and determine it safe/rebut it/make it moot. Maybe it will stay dangerous for a long time, I don't know, but there seems to be a decent chance that you'll find out about it soon enough.

Don't assume it's Ok because you understand the need for friendliness and aren't writing code. There are no secrets to intelligence in hidden comments. (Though I didn't see the original thread, I think I figured it out and it's not giving me any insights.)

Don't feel left out or not smart for not 'getting it' we only 'got it' because it was told to us. Try to compensate for your ego. if you fail, Stop reading anyway.

Ab ernyyl fgbc ybbxvat. Phevbfvgl erfvfgnapr snvy.

http://www.damninteresting.com/this-place-is-not-a-place-of-honor

Comment author: katydee 29 July 2010 08:01:28PM 0 points [-]

Sorry, forgot that not everyone saw the thread in question. Eliezer replied to the original post and explicitly said that it was dangerous and should not be published. I am willing to take his word for it, as he knows far more about AI than I.

Comment author: murat 01 August 2010 01:09:56AM * 5 points [-]

I have not seen the original post, but can't someone simply post it somewhere else? Is deleting it from here really a solution (assuming there's real danger)? BTW, I can't really see how a post on a board can be dangerous in a way implied here.

Comment author: AngryParsley 01 August 2010 04:08:11AM * 4 points [-]

The likely explanation is that people who read the article agreed it was dangerous. If some of them had decided the censorship was unjustified, LW might look like Digg after the AACS key controversy.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 01 August 2010 04:46:39AM * 14 points [-]

I read the article, and it struck me as dangerous. I'm going to be somewhat vague and say that the article caused two potential forms of danger, one unlikely but extremely bad if it occurs and the other less damaging but having evidence(in the article itself) that the damage type had occurred. FWIW, Roko seemed to agree after some discussion that spreading the idea did pose a real danger.

Comment deleted 02 August 2010 02:09:57PM * [-]

Comment deleted 02 August 2010 02:13:35PM [-]

continue this thread »

Comment author: timtyler 09 September 2010 08:25:46PM -1 points [-]

If some of them had decided the censorship was unjustified, LW might look like Digg after the AACS key controversy.

In fact, there are hundreds of deleted articles on LW. The community is small enough for it to be manually policed - it seems.

Comment author: thomblake 13 August 2010 04:35:33PM 0 points [-]

I have not seen the original post, but can't someone simply post it somewhere else?

Sadly, those who saw the original post have declined to share.

Comment author: ocr-fork 29 July 2010 04:43:10PM -1 points [-]

But PLEASE be very careful using the might-increase-the-chance-of-UFAI excuse, because without fairly bulletproof reasoning it can be used to justify almost anything.

I've read the post. That excuse is actually relevant.

Comment deleted 29 July 2010 05:02:48PM * [-]

Comment deleted 30 July 2010 10:45:03PM * [-]

Comment author: JamesAndrix 06 August 2010 07:40:46AM * 3 points [-]

http://www.damninteresting.com/this-place-is-not-a-place-of-honor

I say for now because those who know about this are going to keep looking at it and determine it safe/rebut it/make it moot. Maybe it will stay dangerous for a long time, I don't know, but there seems to be a decent chance that you'll find out about it soon enough.

Don't feel left out or not smart for not 'getting it' we only 'got it' because it was told to us. Try to compensate for your ego. if you fail, Stop reading anyway.

Ab ernyyl fgbc ybbxvat. Phevbfvgl erfvfgnapr snvy.

http://www.damninteresting.com/this-place-is-not-a-place-of-honor

Comment author: cousin_it 06 August 2010 08:58:52AM * 3 points [-]

and I think everyone who heard it either outright agrees with Eliezer or thinks it wise to defer to his judgment for now.

I heard it and I don't think it's "wise" to defer to Eliezer's judgment on the matter. I stopped discussing this stuff on LW for a different reason: I feel LW is Eliezer's site and I'd better follow his requests here.

Comment author: XiXiDu 06 August 2010 11:06:00AM * 5 points [-]

EY might have a disproportionately high influence on us and our future. In this case I believe it is appropriate not to grant him certain rights, i.e. constrain his protection from criticism. He still has the option to ban people, further explain himself or just ignore it. But just censoring something that is by definition highly important and not stating any reasons for it makes me highly suspicious. Even more so if I'm told not to pursue this issue any further in the manner of a sacred truth you are not supposed to know.

Comment author: JamesAndrix 06 August 2010 09:48:31AM 0 points [-]

Sorry, I didn't mean to misrepresent consensus. Will edit shortly.

To be clear: I do have a lot of complaints with how this was and is being handled.

My intent is for other to not keep digging for the reasons I did, because I now think my reasons were not sufficient, given the reasons I had not to.

Comment deleted 05 August 2010 12:15:51PM * [-]

Comment deleted 06 August 2010 08:09:17AM * [-]

Comment author: XiXiDu 05 August 2010 09:56:27AM * 25 points [-]

Something really crazy is going on here.

You people have fabricated a fantastic argument for all kinds of wrongdoing and idiot decisions, "it could increase the chance of an AI going wrong...".

"I deleted my comment because it was maybe going to increase the chance of an AI going wrong..."

"Hey, I had to punch that guy in the face, he was going to increase the chance of an AI going wrong by uttering something stupid..."

"Sorry, I had to exterminate those people because they were going to increase the chance of an AI going wrong."

I'm beginning to wonder if not unfriendly AI but rather EY and this movement might be the bigger risk.

Why would I care about some feverish dream of a galactic civilization if we have to turn into our own oppressor and that of others? Screw you. That’s not what I want. Either I win like this, or I don’t care to win at all. What’s winning worth, what’s left of a victory, if you have to relinquish all that you value? That’s not winning, it’s worse than losing, it means to surrender to mere possibilities, preemptively.

Comment author: Blueberry 05 August 2010 10:46:58AM 15 points [-]

This is why deleting the comments was the bigger risk: doing so makes people think (incorrectly) that EY and this movement are the bigger risk, instead of unfriendly AI.

Comment author: XiXiDu 05 August 2010 11:09:20AM * 11 points [-]

The problem is, are you people sure you want to take this route? If you are serious about all this, what would stop you from killing a million people if your probability estimates showed that there was a serious risk posed by those people?

If you read this comment thread you'll see what I mean and what danger there might be posed by this movement, 'follow Eliezer', 'donating as much as possible to SIAI', 'kill a whole planet', 'afford to leave one planet's worth', 'maybe we could even afford to leave their brains unmodified'...lesswrong.com sometimes makes me feel more than a bit uncomfortable, especially if you read between the lines.

Yes, you might be right about all the risks in question. But you might be wrong about the means of stopping the same.

Comment author: Blueberry 06 August 2010 09:59:19AM * 6 points [-]

I'm not sure if this was meant for me; I agree with you about free speech and not deleting the posts. I don't think it means EY and this movement are a great danger, though. Deleting the posts was the wrong decision, and hopefully it will be reversed soon, but I don't see that as indicating that anyone would go out and kill people to help the Singularity occur. If there really were a Langford Basilisk, say, a joke that made you die laughing, I would want it removed.

As to that comment thread: Peer is a very cool person and a good friend, but he is a little crazy and his beliefs and statements shouldn't be taken to reflect anything about anyone else.

Comment author: XiXiDu 06 August 2010 10:40:08AM * 13 points [-]

I know, it wasn't my intention to discredit Peer, I quite like his ideas. I'm probably more crazy than him anyway.

But if I can come up with such conclusions, who else will? Also, why isn't anyone out to kill people, or will be? I'm serious, why not? Just imagine EY found out that we can be reasonable sure, for example Google, would let loose a rogue AI soon. Given how the LW audience is inclined to act upon 'mere' probability estimates, how wouldn't it be appropriate to bomb Google, given that was the only way to stop them in due time from turning the world into a living hell? And how isn't this meme, given the right people and circumstances, a great danger? Sure, me saying EY might be a greater danger was nonsense, just said to provoke some response. By definition, not much could be worse than uFAI.

This incident is simply a good situation to extrapolate. If a thought-experiment can be deemed to be dangerous enough to be not just censored and deleted but for people to be told not even to seek any knowledge of it, much less discuss it, I'm wondering about the possible reaction to a imminent and tangible danger.

Comment deleted 23 September 2010 05:21:40AM [-]

Comment deleted 24 September 2010 06:42:21AM [-]

continue this thread »

Comment author: waitingforgodel comment score below threshold [+] (73 children)

Comment deleted 06 August 2010 11:40:19AM * [-]

Comment deleted 06 August 2010 01:49:02PM [-]

continue this thread »

Comment deleted 06 August 2010 11:58:26AM * [-]

continue this thread »

Comment author: Blueberry 06 August 2010 12:30:14PM 0 points [-]

If an AI does what Roko suggested, it's not friendly. We don't know what, if anything, CEV will output, but I don't see any reason to think CEV would enact Roko's scenario.

continue this thread »

Comment deleted 05 August 2010 11:22:40AM [-]

Comment deleted 05 August 2010 11:41:58AM [-]

Comment author: jimrandomh 05 August 2010 02:11:01PM 0 points [-]

If you take this incident to its extreme, the important question is what people are willing to do in future based on the argument "it could increase the chance of an AI going wrong..."?

That is not the argument that caused stuff to be deleted from Less Wrong! Nor is it true that leaving it visible would increase the chance of an AI going wrong. The only plausible scenario where information might be deleted on that basis is if someone posted designs or source code for an actual working AI, and in that case much more drastic action would be required.

Comment deleted 05 August 2010 02:52:18PM [-]

continue this thread »

Comment deleted 05 August 2010 11:01:28AM [-]

Comment author: katydee 06 August 2010 02:08:17AM -2 points [-]

Maybe you should read the comments in question before you make this sort of post?

Comment author: Kevin comment score below threshold [+] (14 children)

Comment author: wedrifid 05 August 2010 12:41:11PM 10 points [-]

This really isn't worth arguing and there isn't any reason to be angry...

You are wrong on both. There is strong signalling going on that gives good evidence regarding both Eliezer's intent and his competence.

What Roko said matters little, what Eliezer said (and did) matters far more. He is the one trying to take over the world.

Comment author: XiXiDu 05 August 2010 11:28:13AM 4 points [-]

I don't consider frogs to be objects of moral worth. -- Eliezer Yudkowsky

Yeah ok, frogs...but wait! This is the person who's going to design the moral seed of our coming god-emperor. I'm not sure if everyone here is aware of the range of consequences while using the same as corroboration of the correctness pursuing this route. That is, are we going to replace unfriendly AI with unknown EY? Are we yet at the point that we can tell EY is THE master who'll decide upon what's reasonable to say in public and what should be deleted?

Ask yourself if you really, seriously believe into the ideas posed on LW, enough to follow into the realms of radical oppression in the name of good and evil.

Comment author: Kevin 05 August 2010 11:41:17AM 0 points [-]

I am vaguely confused by your question and am going to stop having this discussion.

Comment author: jimrandomh comment score below threshold [+] (9 children)

Comment author: wedrifid 05 August 2010 12:42:02PM 1 point [-]

There are some good questions buried in there that may be worth discussing in more detail at some point.

Comment deleted 05 August 2010 07:50:27PM [-]

Comment deleted 05 August 2010 02:03:25PM [-]

Comment deleted 05 August 2010 02:41:29PM [-]

Comment deleted 05 August 2010 03:25:45PM [-]

Comment deleted 29 July 2010 01:49:54PM [-]

Comment author: [deleted] 29 July 2010 05:37:07AM * 8 points [-]

It's also generally impolite (though completely within the TOS) to delete a person's contributions according to some arbitrary rules. Given that Roko is the seventh highest contributor to the site, I think he deserves some more respect. Since Roko was insulted, there doesn't seem to be a reason for him to act nicely to everyone else. If you really want the posts restored, it would probably be more effective to request an admin to do so.

Vladimir_Nesov comments on Open Thread: July 2010, Part 2 - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (770)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (770)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login